Saker Podcast #14: a religious smorgasbord

Here is my newest podcast, this time deal with a few religious questions I have been asked by readers.

You can also listen to it on YouTube:

And this is the Islamic text I quote in the podcast:

4 types of people

Shaikh Abdul Qadir al-Jilani said that there are 4 kinds of people in the world:

1st: Those who have the name of the Lord-God neither on their lips nor in their hearts. He advised that we should stay away from them other than to invite them to the way of the Lord-God. We should also keep our families away from them.

2nd: Those who have the name of the Lord-God on their lips – but not in their hearts. He warned that these are the most dangerous of all men. We should avoid them the way we avoid a plague. The closer we stay to them the more likely that we will absorb the stench which comes from such people.

3rd: Those who have the name of the Lord-God in their hearts, but not on their lips. He advised that these are the friends of the Lord-God, and that we should do all we can to assist them and take care of them, for such will earn us blessings from the Lord-God.

4th: Those who have the name of the Lord-God both on their lips as well as in their hearts. He declared that this is the Prince of all men. He warned that none should stand up against such a man for the consequence will be terrible. Rather mankind should follow such men.

The Essential Saker: from the trenches of the emerging multipolar world

Leave a Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to get more info on formatting

(1) Leave the name field empty if you want to post as Anonymous. It's preferable that you choose a name so it becomes clear who said what. E-mail address is not mandatory either. The website automatically checks for spam. Please refer to our moderation policies for more details. We check to make sure that no comment is mistakenly marked as spam. This takes time and effort, so please be patient until your comment appears. Thanks.

(2) 10 replies to a comment are the maximum.

(3) Here are formating examples which you can use in your writing:
<b>bold text</b> results in bold text
<i>italic text</i> results in italic text
(You can also combine two formating tags with each other, for example to get bold-italic text.)
<em>emphasized text</em> results in emphasized text
<strong>strong text</strong> results in strong text
<q>a quote text</q> results in a quote text (quotation marks are added automatically)
<cite>a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited</cite> results in:a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited
<blockquote>a heavier version of quoting a block of text...</blockquote> results in:

a heavier version of quoting a block of text that can span several lines. Use these possibilities appropriately. They are meant to help you create and follow the discussions in a better way. They can assist in grasping the content value of a comment more quickly.

and last but not least:
<a href=''http://link-address.com''>Name of your link</a> results in Name of your link

(4)No need to use this special character in between paragraphs:&nbsp;You do not need it anymore. Just write as you like and your paragraphs will be separated.The "Live Preview" appears automatically when you start typing below the text area and it will show you how your comment will look like before you send it.

(5) If you now think that this is too confusing then just ignore the code above and write as you like.

If you are interested and have the patience, you may go on Google Images and try all possible combinations like: church interiors, orthodox church interiors, orthodox frescoes, orthodox mosaics, icons, etc.

It is called “Walling off”, an ancient Patristic method deriving directly from the Scripture (Deuteronomy 19:15-21 and Matthew 18:15-20). The purpose is double here:
1) self-preservation: not to get influenced or otherwise sucked-in in the kind of behavior which has caused the problem to begin with
2) witnessing: to show that it is not “no big deal” or “business as usual”.
It is very much a proactive way of action.

Dear Saker,
Many thanks for this podcast (I am Claes by the way). After reading it twice, and some parts several times, my admiration for you has only grown larger. Also if I am still an agnostic (obs. not an atheist). What you write about love, goodness and beauty I totally agree with. It reminds me of the old Icelandic “Havamal”: “One thing I know that never dies. That’s the judgement over a dead man”. And as I said already in my comment: I respect the argument that I believe there is a God because I feel it in my heart. Believe me: if I had felt the same in my heart I should also have been a believer. Some comments however:

I respect the “I feel it in my heart…” argument when it is the questions of God, life after death and heaven. But as far as I know there are many people on earth that feel in their heart that unbelievers should be killed. Or that homosexuals should be killed. And what about a jury member in a murder case who says: “No need for discussion, I feel it in my heart that the guy is guilty”? Should we respect those arguments also? I suppose we should respect them as sincerely felt convictions, which doesn’t mean that we accept evil acts arising from these convictions, right?

And you leave some basic religious questions unanswered. I suppose that’s good and very honest since the base for your belief is a feeling, not a set of deductions and arguments.

But as far as I know there are many people on earth that feel in their heart that unbelievers should be killed. Or that homosexuals should be killed. And what about a jury member in a murder case who says: “No need for discussion, I feel it in my heart that the guy is guilty”? Should we respect those arguments also?

You are confusing issues here.

First, since all human have a fallen/lapsed, nature and since all humans are fallible and sinful, all humans make mistakes. So you do not have to agree with somebody just because that somebody feels something.

Second, please assume for the sake of discussion that there IS a God and that he DOES convey to us His will by means of revelation. What are you do to if He tells you something you don’t feel comfortable with? Will you argue with God? Or decide, God is wrong and I am right? That would be silly. So rather than argue with God, what the logical thing to do is to decide by means of lengthy investigation whether the putative “revelation” you are dealing with is real or a human-generated fake.

So the issue is not “respect for” X Y or Z, but the correct sequence of:

1) seek and decide in your conscience which, if any, religion truly expresses the Will of God
2) submit to that Will IF and ONLY IF you have become convinced in your heart, mind and conscience that God’s Will has been accurately conveyed to you.

Some religions say that (for example) infidels should be killed. Other say that they should be loved. Fine. Rather then simply decide that you “respect” the religions which say that infidels should be loved, what you need to decide first is which religion is true and WHY you can decide that it is true. Only THEN can you make the real decision which is not to “respect” or not, but to *submit* or not.

“what you need to decide first is which religion is true and WHY you can decide that it is true.”

That is not easily done. Since I don’t feel in my heart that ANY religion is true or false, how should I solve this problem? For me remains only simple use of my limited intellect, and that leads me to agnosticism. I do think that the Christian love message is much more attractive than both Judaism and Islam, but is it TRUE?

One of the unanswered questions I mentioned is “Where is God?” You say (9.45): “…the word goodness and the word love are actually perfect substitutes for the concept of God”. So God is something inside us? But Jesus spoke of “My father in heaven…”? And did God create the world? You say (9.55) “IF there is a creator…” Can a Christian really doubt that there is a creator? What about Genesis?

I hope you see that I am not trying to convince anybody of anything. If you could convince me I should be very happy, especially since I am 73 and suffering from a lot of stuff. Maybe God could arrange a really convincing revelation for me :-)
Live well!
Claes

Correct. That is why Christ said “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness: for they will be filled” – hunger and thirst are powerful, gut, feelings. You must REALLY BADLY WANT to find the truth to find it. This is not a pass time or a week-end activity. This is a life quest. This is why it is written that the Kingdom of Heaven is “taken by violence” meaning here “strenuous, strong, effort”. And this is why it is written “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind” (you can substitute the word “God” with the words “Truth” or “Love” or “Beauty” or even “Reality”) and “So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.”. All these passages indicate that, yes, this is hard, and you must put all your determination and willpower towards finding the truth. But if you do – you WILL find it!

Since I don’t feel in my heart that ANY religion is true or false, how should I solve this problem? For me remains only simple use of my limited intellect, and that leads me to agnosticism. I do think that the Christian love message is much more attractive than both Judaism and Islam, but is it TRUE?

First, basic logic. If there are X number of religions out there, this can either mean that none of them are true or that only 1 of them is true. Right? So proceed by first eliminating all those which your heart and conscience clearly reject. I very much doubt that the list you will be left with will be very long. Then, compare those left to each other: read about them, visit their clergymen (or pious faithful), see what they say about each other, etc. The crucial thing is do NOT learn about religion A from those who belong to religion B or to no religion at all. Learn about each religion from those who live their lives INSIDE that religion, truly and on an everyday basis. Last but not least, ask for God’s help in a simple prayers: “God have mercy on me, a sinner” and “God I do believe, but help me overcome my unbelief”.

Thank you Saker for spending time and interest on this discussion. It has been really interesting to listen to and read your opinions. And maybe you have sown a little seed. I promise to check the website you recommended and I hope many of your readers will.
Cheers.
Claes

I concur with the Saker: if you genuinely desire seeking the truth (i.e. seeking to connect to the Almighty Lord; understanding the purpose of life etc), the Almighty Lord will facilitate the truth coming to you.

In trying to establish whether there is a Creator or not, the Almighty Lord appeals to humankind in the final divine revelation (The Qur’an) to reflect on His signs in the Heavens and the Earth as well as ourselves…surely the sophisticated design, the order of things etc could not have been by mere chance! If we were to view (natural) creation through the lense of statistics, the probability of all of this occuring randomly is a finite quatum divided by infinity, i.e zero! Hence, the equation of atheism is completely illogical!

The Almighty Lord is absolutely just! He wouldn’t merely place humankind on Earth without real purpose or guidance. Over the history of humanity He has sent various messengers, as well as divine revelations. These messengers include Abraham, Moses (with the Torah), Jesus (with the Gospels) and culminating in the last of them all Muhammad (with the Qur’an – the final divine revelation which the Almighty Lord has promised to protect the authenticity of until the Day of Judgement) – may peace and blessings be upon them all!

Dear Ismaeel! How nice and how interesting to find a discussion friend from the Islam belief! Surely I would like to hear more from you. My only contact with moslems was 40 years ago when I had a private teacher in French, he was an arab from Tunisia. Really nice guy, he had learned to speak Swedish better than any foreigner I have ever met. When you heard him speak you never suspected that he was not Swedish, but you felt maybe a little uncertain about from which part of Sweden he came. We never discussed religion, only had fun together (he served me Arabic dishes…) and, of course, French lessons.
Well, if you would like to discuss religion with an agnostic Swede you reach me at cgfjalling@gmail. com.
Bye.
Claes

“4th: Those who have the name of the Lord-God both on their lips as well as in their hearts. He declared that this is the Prince of all men. He warned that none should stand up against such a man for the consequence will be terrible. Rather mankind should follow such men.”

Can not you understand that this means a war not only against the atheists but against such old cultures as China or India?
By the way who has any idea about your “Lord-God” which is agreed on by all of this type four people without generating a “Holly War” between them?

I’ m sorry to be one to tell you this, but those hundreds of millions of Buddhists and Taoists, with their right motivations , right thoughts, right actions etc., and their commitment to harmony and peace, are really not worthy of consideration by those of us who have the only true dharma.
Needless to say.

Sorry. Several mis-steps were taken by me yesterday.
Onset of winter may be affecting the mood.
Perhaps best that I concentrate on pastoral matters from here until spring in early August.
Mindfulness of animal welfare,and care of the soil and water should fill the shortened days.

“3rd: Those who have the name of the Lord-God in their hearts, but not on their lips. ”

There are cultures in the world, for instance in Finland were people (Lutheran) are taught to be modest and humble and not bragging about their religious feelings. Besides that Lutheran understanding is based on idea that it’s God’s work to make human his believer and human (other Child of God) is just a “a incomplete broker”. Faith is not feeling. Feelings comes and goes but faith remains (if it remained). In many ways Finns are much nearer to Chinese and Japanese attitudes compared to American branch of faith. Likely most of Finns are seeing American religion more or less as pure hoax and pretense.

“We live in a century, where it is a sign of intelligence and refined intellectual quality to make fun of religion…”

Spot on dear Saker!

My only religious education came from my grandmother. She was the smartest woman I’ve ever met, and she didn’t have any fancy degrees or initials after her name. I miss her very much. Listening to the religious discussions with you, Saker, is very comforting to me.

Hello
This was a very informative podcast. Thank you. I am looking for a way to go back to Church, but I don’t want to go back to the Roman Catholic Church. There are no Orthodox churches near me. Do you have any advice?

Christianity is unlike other religions in that you must be called to it. It is not given to all. Consider the elevation of the Host in the Roman rite where the words pertaining to the Sacrifice use the expression “for the many” and not “for all”. This underscores that not all are called. Again, “Many are called, few are chosen.” Not all are even called. Christ often prefaced what He was about to relate by the words “Let him who has ears hear.” This implies that not everyone has ears.

I that this will offend many who would say, “But if Christianity is true, then, by God choosing not to call some, that shows that He is injust.” I take it as given that He is not unjust, so there must be another explanation, perhaps in God’s foreknowledge of our ultimate choices, but truthfully, I doubt that rather facile argument.

It is at this point that the Predestination heresy arises. Indeed, the notion of predestination was a reasonable and natural thing to think, given the words of Christ quoted above. However, “By their fruits you shall know them.” Predestination was a central tenet of Calvinism which eventually came to express itself in the idea that those with the most material success in this world are the elect, which, it must be admitted, is a common deeply held belief, particularly by those who are successful, Christian or not. This is completely at odds with Christ’s love for the poor and his many condemnations of the rich, although we must not forget the camel passing through the needle’s eye. Suffice it to say that faith is a gift that is freely given and that most reject that. I doubt that those who reject this gift care two pins about whether there is predestination or not. On the other hand, those who are deeply offended by this idea may be, by that fact alone, on the narrow path that leads to salvation. They protest in their hearts to God this seeming injustice. In doing so, they are implicitly acknowledging God’s divine authority. “Knock and it shall be opened unto you.” This is a great mystery at the heart of what it means to follow Christ.

Now, I’m really going to go out on a limb. Christ said that we must be born again and the disciples naturally posed the question, how can one once again enter into his mother’s womb. Christ answered that one must be born of water and the Holy Ghost:

“Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

Evangelical Protestants are very attached to this idea of being born again, but IMO, they don’t know what they are talking about. I believe that if you are born again, you literally emerge from the top of your head. You experience the same sensation of going from a very warm place, the womb of your mother, into the cool air. You feel a cool breeze on the top of your head and you see the blue firmament of heaven. This cool breeze is called “ruach”.

This is not to say that baptisms are invalid for those who receive them, but this ruach experience of being born through the top of your head is the actual process of being born again. It may happen years after baptism quite spontaneously. I wish to inform evangelicals–not that they will listen–that they are fooling themselves with regard to being born again, as are probably the vast majority of other Christians. This is an extremely serious matter for Christians that has been either not ackowleged or swept under the rug. I have found no discussion of it on the internet in a Christian context.

This matter of ruach may also put the pentecostal tongues of fire above the apostle’s heads in a different light. Perhaps the tongues of fire emerged from their heads, but they themselves felt a cool breeze and not heat from the flames.

As I said, I’m going out on a limb here, but I feel that even though the vast majority of people have no familiarity with this phenomenon, it is nevertheless quite real and should be considered and may very well be the correct understanding of being “born again.” It has all the aspects of the actual birth experience. On this note, the naysayers will not miss the opportunity to say, “The explanation is simple. You are re-experiencing you bodily birth.”

If you look at the 3 monotheistic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, there is no doubt that some of their stories originated out of a far more historical past, like the story of Noah and the flood, witch is the story of Gilgamesh from the old Sumerians.

In this story a garden (Eden) is created by a God Enki, for his girlfriend Ninhursagh.
Enki eats from forbidden herbs. (apple)
There is a talking fox. (witch makes sense, because snakes are deaf.)
And Ninhursagh creates a half-god out of Enki’s rib, among other half-gods out of other bodyparts.

There is no doubt that our story of the garden of Eden originated from this story, since there are far too many similarities.

However, the authors of the story of Eden, have not only committed plagiarism, but they have also thrown the story upside down, inside out.

It was a woman, Ninhursagh, who had the power over life and death.
Without her, Enki would have been dead.
It was also a woman who created half-gods out of a rib and other bodyparts.

You could rightfully say that both 3 religions, yes also orthodox Christianity, are a form of blasphemy of the original.
With thousends of years of suppression of the woman as a result, by the way. :-(

I really mean no offence by this, simply I think those 3 religions are all .. well ..
.. upside-out.

“I feel love to be a real bond not some chemical reaction”. This is to assume what has to be proved, that we are other than the product of biological evolution. That something feels some way to us is not evidence either way.

Similarly, “seek and decide in your conscience which, if any, religion truly expresses the Will of God”. That your conscience is other than a construct of social evolution and personal education within a society, and is uniquely veridical, is what has to be proved, not assumed. That something feels to us as if dictated to us by conscience is not evidence either way.

“Basic logic. If there are X number of religions out there, this can either mean that none of them are true or that only 1 of them is true. Right?” Each religion is a complex combination of doctrine and practice that evolves over time. It is not straightforward to call any one of them “true”.

Similarly, the fact that religion appears in every society we know of is not evidence one way or the other for the truth of any of their doctrines or benefit of any of their practices. Indeed, a comprehensive study of the religions we have evidence for will reveal an immense treasury of the absurd, grotesque and bloody alongside some moral wisdom and socially useful practices. There is a natural explanation for the phenomenon at least as robust as the non-natural or supernatural..

“Absolute existence”. A word has been coined which I suggest applies: “deepity” – something that appears deep but isn’t. What is meant? Something that exists but is beyond our necessarily limited, relative and partial ability to learn of it? A something I know not what? What evidence can we have for such “absolute existence” that justifies our belief in it? We are back with the arguments for and against theism, and after several thousand years the dispute has still not been conclusively settled by either side.

And on Paul, history was used to support a doctrinal conclusion, so it’s worth looking at the history as interpreted by scholars who have devoted their career to the subject, for example, E. P. Sanders (and a host of others). There is a clear distinction to be drawn between the church in Jerusalem and Paul. They considered themselves a part of Judaism. He preached to the gentiles. Pauline theology is distinctive.

Sitemap

Saker Android App

An Android App has been developed by one of our supporters. It is available for download and install by clicking on the Google Play Store Badge above.

All the original content published on this blog is licensed by Saker Analytics, LLC under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 International license (creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0). For permission to re-publish or otherwise use non-original or non-licensed content, please consult the respective source of the content.